Bug 6740 - RH installation program broke my LILO
RH installation program broke my LILO
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: installer (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michael Fulbright
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 1999-11-04 20:37 EST by dserodio
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2000-02-22 10:03:28 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description dserodio 1999-11-04 20:37:50 EST
I was using RH 6.0, on /dev/sda5, with LILO installed on
/dev/sda5 (and /etc/lilo.conf also knew that). I use System
Commander on my MBR and winndows on /dev/sda1. When I
upgraded to 6.1, by booting from the CD-ROM and choosing the
custom upgrade option, the RH setup program installed LILO
on my MBR!!!
	As a result, I couldn't boot my windows partition
(/dev/sda1) but Linux booted ok. I had to reinstall System
Commander. Then I couldn't boot Linux!!! Maybe because the
kernel changed, lilo (the one on /dev/sda5) stopped after
saying 'LIL-'.
	I spent 2 days trying to install lilo again, from a boot
disk, because it complained about 'First boot sector does
not contain a valid boot sector' whether I tried it on
/dev/sda or /dev/sda5. The other day, when I was trying to
install it for the last time, before tragically formatting
my Linux partition, it installed (with no special options
	Well, sorry if I wrote too much, but I really got pissed at
the RH setup stuff. It REALLY should read /etc/lilo.conf or
something to know where lilo is.
Comment 1 Cristian Gafton 2000-01-04 17:20:59 EST
Assigned to dledford
Comment 2 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2000-02-17 15:30:59 EST
This is a bug in the installer, not lilo itself. Reassigning.
Comment 3 Jay Turner 2000-02-22 10:03:59 EST
This issue was fixed with errata available for 6.1.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.